“Warm Home” instead of “Clean Air”. A revolution for 2.2 million buildings

Common sense suggests that the most smog is generally found in relatively poor countries, and the more developed the country, the healthier the air its inhabitants breathe. But not in Poland.

Despite PLN 18.5 billion already spent in the “Clean Air” program, despite anti-smog resolutions in almost all voivodeships and high fines for the continued use of fumes, smog in Poland not only persists, but is even getting worse. Experts believe that radical changes will not be possible, especially since approximately PLN 44 billion still needs to be spent on improving air quality.

What needs to change?

Smog persists in Poland. Stagnation in the “Clean Air” program

According to the Chief Inspectorate of Environmental Protection, the best year for air quality in Poland was 2023, but the IQAir World Air Quality Report for 2025 shows that air quality in Poland has not only not improved since then, but is even worsening.

– The rapid improvement in air quality in Poland that we observed earlier was the result of the interaction of three factors: increasingly mild winters, the launch and subsequent improvement of the state “Clean Air” program, and the increase in energy prices in the initial phase of the war in Ukraine. For two years now, we have had, in a sense, the opposite situation – commented Łukasz Adamkiewicz from the European Center for Clean Air (ECAC) for Smog Alarm.

In winter, sub-zero temperatures returned, and we replace less smoke cigarettes than before after changes in the “Clean Air” program. If we want to change this situation for the better, we can only change it radically.

Polski Alert Smogowy and the think tank Project Tempo want to replace the current program with a completely new one called “Warm Home”. Its cost is PLN 120 billion.

What will “Ciepły Dom” offer to Poles? Central reference database and AI

The new program would retain three levels of income-based subsidies and a closed catalog of unit costs. It would remain centrally financed and managed, but without shifting responsibility to municipalities, as is currently the case.

It would allow the modernization to be divided into stages. The most important efficiency indicator would be the “Max 140” rule: after modernization, the building’s demand for usable energy could not exceed 140 kWh per square meter per year.

If a building audit shows that even full modernization will not allow it to achieve this level, the state would not finance an expensive renovation with questionable economic results. In such a situation, residents could still receive support for a safe heat source and fuel subsidies. In the case of the poorest households, it would also be possible to voluntarily move to a municipal apartment or build an energy-efficient modular house on their plot.

The authors also propose limiting subsidies to replacing tight and still functional windows and doors. Support would be granted only when the new joinery reduces the heat transfer coefficient by at least 60%.

A central reference database would be created. If the product or service were priced at over 30%. above the market level, the provincial fund would refuse financing. The authors also want to use artificial intelligence to track abuses.